RFR 8134995(M): [REDO] GC: implement ranges (optionally constraints) for those flags that have them missing (original) (raw)
sangheon.kim sangheon.kim at oracle.com
Tue Oct 6 06:19:43 UTC 2015
- Previous message: RFR 8134995(M): [REDO] GC: implement ranges (optionally constraints) for those flags that have them missing
- Next message: RFR 8134995(M): [REDO] GC: implement ranges (optionally constraints) for those flags that have them missing
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 10/05/2015 05:46 PM, Kim Barrett wrote:
On Oct 5, 2015, at 5:45 PM, sangheon.kim<sangheon.kim at oracle.com> wrote:
On 10/05/2015 02:06 PM, Kim Barrett wrote:
On Oct 5, 2015, at 4:35 PM, sangheon.kim<sangheon.kim at oracle.com> wrote: Here's next webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sangheki/8134995/webrev.04 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sangheki/8134995/webrev.04to03 I think there is still at least a potential for problems around the use of FLAGISCMDLINE in the constraint functions, but I don’t see an actual problem at this time. Another issue besides those I’ve mentioned before is that if the constraint is only active when FLAGISCMDLINE and no command line option was given, but the option is manageable and later set through that interface, I think the constraint won’t check the new value being provided. However, none of the options with new constraint functions using FLAGISCMDLINE are manageable, so I think there’s no immediate problem on that score. But there should be an RFE to follow up in this area. So looks good to me. Okay, I added your point at JDK-8134348.
And thank you again for the review!
Thanks, Sangheon
- Previous message: RFR 8134995(M): [REDO] GC: implement ranges (optionally constraints) for those flags that have them missing
- Next message: RFR 8134995(M): [REDO] GC: implement ranges (optionally constraints) for those flags that have them missing
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]